A Question about Medical Malpractice Lawsuits

[JANdad]

Why would both Hillary and Barrack be in favor of changing medical malpractice lawsuits? According to both of their prospective health plans (links below), they both believe that this would help lower the cost of health care...I'm sorry, but I thought this was a RW/Rush Limbaugh talking point...o am I mistaken?

Obama: Reforming medical malpractice. Obama will strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance, and will promote new models for addressing physician errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship, and reduce the need for malpractice suits.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Clinton: In order to ensure greater stability and predictability for physicians to continue to practice, we need common-sense medical malpractice reforms. While some have overstated the role that malpractice insurance plays in the health care crisis, it is clear that we have to find a way that works for everyone, doctors and patients alike.

Senator Clinton will:

Promote medical error disclosure and provider-patient trust:Senator Clinton has introduced the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation (MEDiC) Act. It would encourage the adoption of a model that provides liability protections for physicians who disclose medical errors to patients and who offer to enter into negotiations for fair compensation. Overall, these policies have resulted in greater patient trust and satisfaction, more patients being compensated for injuries, fewer numbers of malpractice suits being filed, and significantly reduced administrative and legal defense costs. At the University of Michigan, this program has saved $1-3 million in litigation costs.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcare/

[SharonAnn]

1. Studies have shown that limits to malpractice didn't lower malpractice ins for doctors.

[Bake]

2. Many states already have barriers in place

That make it very difficult to file "frivolous" med-mal lawsuits. Like, e.g., you have to have EVIDENCE of malpractice when you file the lawsuit.

Plus, there's Rule 11 (or its equivalent in the rules of civil procedure).

I think that's plenty. If HRC and Obama need more, they're barking up the wrong tree as far as I'm concerned -- translated, they're pandering for votes. That's a shame, if they really want us to think they're pushing a new kind of politics ...

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.....

Bake

[maximusveritas]

3. What's your guy's position? I see you conveniently left it off. n/t

[JANdad]

5. Well if you care to look at his policy

I will copy the link here...

Funny you should accuse me of leaving it out...Do you really think that I am that STUPID?

HE DOES NOT HAVE ONE! IT IS NOT IN HIS AGNEDA TO LIMIT PATIENT RECOURSE!

Apparently Michael Moore is on to something when he notes that HRC is a big reciever of Medical Industry (read doctor) donations...

http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf

[maximusveritas]

6. To answer your question: Yes; Edwards supports reforms too

http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070614-health-care-costs-quality.pdf
Check out page 14

It's titled "COMMON-SENSE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORMS"

"While patients injured by their doctors’ negligence deserve fair compensation, frivolous malpractice suits benefit no one. John Edwards will reduce the cost of practicing medicine with common-sense reforms that help doctors and patients."

He then goes on to talk about reducing frivolous lawsuits, strengthening antitrust laws, and medical error disclosure.

Oh my.

[JANdad]

7. Oh...I See...

Senator Clinton will:

Promote medical error disclosure and provider-patient trust:Senator Clinton has introduced the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation (MEDiC) Act. It would encourage the adoption of a model that provides liability protections for physicians who disclose medical errors to patients and who offer to enter into negotiations for fair compensation.

That is a far cry from punishing ambulance chasing lawyers and provides liability protections for physicians who disclose medical errors ...oops...I took out your liver instead of your splean...now that I have told you, you can not sue me...Oh My

[beaconess]

10. Edwards has long supported reasonable med-mal reform

[TreasonousBastard]

4. They're both full of shit, but I mean that...

in a nice way-- it's campaign season and if politicians can't throw bullshit at a problem, what can they do? Hang out in the middle of the road with all those dead armadillos is what.

No real meat to either "plan" but platitudes to both victims of malpractice and doctors who have seen their premiums skyrocket.

everyone who has looked closely at the medical malpractice "problem" (like me) has seen that there is no clear or siumple answer. First thing is that all malpractice insurance companies refuse to make actual claims experience public so no one knows what the real numbers are. Then, you've got a small number of doctors responsible for most of the claims, but, again, we don't know exactly how many dollars they're responsible for.

Add the those structural problems understanding the malpractice "crisis" to 50 different sets of state laws and ereinsurance rates set in London every three years and it's a mess no candidate is going to solve on the campaign trail.

But, they will be asked, and they will have a line of bullshit ready.

[dflprincess]

8. Our current health care system encourages malpractice suits

Suppose something goes wrong in surgery, either something that was a known risk to the procedure and just some fluke that isn't really anybody's fault and the patient winds up needing care for the rest of their life. Under our current system the only way it can be paid for is to sue the doctor.

If they want malpractice reform, they better reform the healthcare system first.

[beaconess]

9. They're in favor of reforms that will actually reduce premiums for doctors while allowing

plaintiffs who have been harmed to recover for real damages.

Insurers have been pushing for "tort reform" by claiming that medical malpractice lawsuits are forcing them to jack up medical malpractice insurance rates. That's a lie. In reality, the insurers are gouging doctors in order to keep their profits in the astronomical range and then blaming it on the malpractice lawyers.

Malpractice is a problem in this country and patients should have the right to recover damages. But most malpractice is done by a small group of doctors, not the entire field.

Obama and Clinton are calling for reforms that will help to reduce malpractice by, among other things, providing patients information about the bad doctors. They also would require insurance companies to pass on any savings to the doctors - which makes sense since the insurance companies are claiming that malpractice claims are the reason their premiums are so high. Of course, the companies don't want to do that and try to scuttle these kinds of reforms because they know that their anti-trial lawyer public relations campaign is all bullshit.

Obama and Clinton are right on point.

[Greyhound]

13. That is exactly right, and the small group of doctors is protected by their colleagues

even when they know that these people should not be allowed to practice.
:crazy:

[Stop Cornyn]

14. That's nonsense. Here in Texas they promised reduced premiums but screwed patients:

Here's an article about the Texas experience:

While TLR and the governor’s office extol the return of insurance companies to the medical malpractice insurance business in Texas and a 6.35 percent drop in malpractice rates (less impressive when you realize that rates for the state’s major insurers went up more than 100 percent between 1999 and 2003), they have surprisingly little else to show for their labors. When I asked TLR for evidence of a tort-reform-fueled business boom, they handed me a five-year-old study.

Several recent studies, on the other hand, make you wonder whether there was ever a litigation crisis at all. Four law professors, including two from the University of Texas, Bernard Black and Charles Silver, found no link between lawsuits and rising insurance premiums. They studied resolved malpractice claims from 1988 to 2002, relying on data from the Texas Department of Insurance. The number of large claims—those with payouts of at least $25,000—had remained basically flat since 1988; jury verdicts in favor of plaintiffs in civil courts had likewise shown no change over the same period. Furthermore, malpractice claims made up less than one percent of total health care expenditures in Texas. In short, nothing changed much in fourteen years except that insurance company profits doubled. And the promised results of tort reform have not occurred: Malpractice insurance reductions have been less than 1.5 percent since 2003, and the hoped-for return of doctors to underserved areas has not taken place. A briefing paper released by the Economic Policy Institute, in Washington, in May 2005 further found no evidence that tort litigation was responsible for causing unemployment, dampening productivity, discouraging research, or driving up liability insurance rates. The institute found, in fact, that the number of lawsuits in the U.S. actually dropped 4 percent in the decade prior to the tort reform year of 2003.

http://www.saynotocaps.org/newsarticles/texasmonthly.htm

[Alamom]

16. I agree with the experience of trying to get information from doctors

& then, trying to bring lawsuits for two family members who died due to neglect or mistakes.....we don't know because we were never told the truth with doctors covering for doctors & records being destroyed.

My 10 year old brother & my dad died (while) in the care of doctors. Neither had fatal health problems to begin with.

[NotGivingUp]

11. because they're both bought and sold by the corporations. nt

[penguin7]

12. Most medical issues don't meet the lawyer's criteria.

The vast majority of medical problems that patients have with doctors and hospitals do not meet the criteria to obtain the help of a lawyer. This criteria is that the case needs to be worth a great deal of money.

In fact with the lawsuit system in place, the majority of cases that are not deemed suitable for a lawsuit are in much worse shape because of the lawyers. The medical system has no structure in place to deal with these cases because of the lawsuits. This is because any such structure would be used against them in the low percentage of cases where there is a case that meets the lawyer criteria.

[unkachuck]

15. what's....

....the percentage of healthcare dollars spent for malpractice settlements verses the percentage spent for useless non-health-providing insurance middlemen, political donations, advertising and wall streets' profit overhead?

....while reforming malpractice they will point to lowering doctors premiums while opening the flood-gates somewhere else....

....how much does Hillary and Barrack make in total from the corporate healthcare in industry?....that will affirm their sincerity....

....this I believe is only a major issue to the corporate healthcare thieves....